W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2020

Re: Working Group Last Call: HTTP Client Hints

From: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:23:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CANh-dXkj4r9TmGCs-PEn8Y2meStKZY2zRdKjRpSTc9L0HPipdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 2:28 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote:

> The PR <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1072> is now
> merged and addresses most of the comments.
>
>
>>> Appendix A.  Interaction with Variants Response Header Field
>>>
>>>     Client Hints may be combined with Variants response header field
>>>     [VARIANTS] to enable fine-grained control of the cache key for
>>>     improved cache efficiency.  Features that define Client Hints will
>>>     need to specify the related variants algorithms as described in
>>>     Section 6 of [VARIANTS].
>>>
>>> Unless we're planning to finish VARIANTS really soon, I'd drop this
>>> appendix.
>>>
>>
>> mnot - thoughts?
>>
>
> Friendly ping! :)
>

I might have been involved in asking for this section... Basically, if this
document is ready to go to RFC before Variants, we don't want to
artificially block it behind Variants, which this Appendix would do. To fix
that, this text ought to move to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-variants-06#appendix-A.

If Variants had gone first, this text would be in the right place, for the
same reason.

That is, I agree with Julian.

Does that make sense?

Jeffrey
Received on Friday, 28 February 2020 20:23:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 28 February 2020 20:23:30 UTC